Bobby Fischer in American Popular Culture

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Yes of his era.
Fischer said something like give him a month or two to get booked up
and he would be a contender.
Maybe, maybe not. We will never know.

But his influence on the game and the publicity he brought to the game
in just 4 active years! should not be underrated.
His games inspired Steinitz (who was known for a while as 'The Austrian M ts to set the game back 150 years, greenpawn, that
most handsome of chess players, failed.

I think Fischer went even further than that GP and stated that he was the greatest
chess genius of all time, Fischer sometimes taking as long as twenty minutes to figure
out Morphys moves, or words to that effect. I think we can take it, Fischer knows what
he is talking about in chess terms. His other appraisals of chess players are less
flattering, he liked Capa but bemoans that he never worked at the game and he
chastises Alekhine as having seen one game you seen them all. Personally i am still
amazed at Morphys games, no matter how many times I play through them, they are
rich, creative and utterly astounding in some instances. To say that Morphy would not
cut it with todays GM's is a nonsense and whoever uttered it wants his bum felt!

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Yes of his era.
Fischer said something like give him a month or two to get booked up
and he would be a contender.
Maybe, maybe not. We will never know.

But his influence on the game and the publicity he brought to the game
in just 4 active years! should not be underrated.
His games inspired Steinitz (who was known for a while as 'The Austrian M ...[text shortened]... ts to set the game back 150 years, greenpawn, that
most handsome of chess players, failed.

the most handsome relative to a hairless chihuahua! 😵

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Yes of his era.
Fischer said something like give him a month or two to get booked up
and he would be a contender.
Maybe, maybe not. We will never know.

But his influence on the game and the publicity he brought to the game
in just 4 active years! should not be underrated.
His games inspired Steinitz (who was known for a while as 'The Austrian M ts to set the game back 150 years, greenpawn, that
most handsome of chess players, failed.

I wonder how an IGM Elo 2785 etc "books up."
I mean they open up MCO read a variation, then bust it etc. 😕

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
I wonder how an IGM Elo 2785 etc "books up."
I mean they open up MCO read a variation, then bust it etc. 😕

does anyone have or use MCO, whats it like? is it like a huge book of pgn's? each
giving an evaluation of the position? I notice that when I finish a game sometimes i get
the little symbol, B27, which i suspect is a reference to some opening.

The opening codes are from the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (usually referred to as ECF):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_of_Chess_Openings

When I was a youngster my local library only had two chess books - a selection of Bronstein's best games and a copy of ECF volume 1 (flank and unusual openings). I had the latter out almost continuously for about a year because, being a beginner, I thought openings were the most important thing about chess.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
The opening codes are from the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (usually referred to as ECF):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_of_Chess_Openings

When I was a youngster my local library only had two chess books - a selection of Bronstein's best games and a copy of ECF volume 1 (flank and unusual openings). I had the latter out almost continuousl ...[text shortened]... a year because, being a beginner, I thought openings were the most important thing about chess.

gulp, only two, we have a large selection, I have read not a few, but it doesn't seem to
make any difference, I have resolved myself to the fact, that you cannot learn to be a
good chess player, either you are, or you are not. Its like drawing and painting, either
you can draw or paint, or you cannot, I do not believe the nurture argument, its all
nature.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
gulp, only two, we have a large selection, I have read not a few, but it doesn't seem to
make any difference, I have resolved myself to the fact, that you cannot learn to be a
good chess player, either you are, or you are not. Its like drawing and painting, either
you can draw or paint, or you cannot, I do not believe the nurture argument, its all
nature.

Horsefeathers, balderdash, and and hooie. Anyone can learn to draw, paint, and become a good chess player. I learned to play chess in 2009 and I'm 2000 OTB right now. That doesn't have anything to do with something that I had innately or didn't but rather because I study all the time.

Originally posted by Thabtos
Horsefeathers, balderdash, and and hooie. Anyone can learn to draw, paint, and become a good chess player. I learned to play chess in 2009 and I'm 2000 OTB right now. That doesn't have anything to do with something that I had innately or didn't but rather because I study all the time.

with all due respect my learned friend, I disagree, not everyone can learn to paint or
draw. I remember the efforts of my class fellows which can be best described as
pitiful, from a young age it was apparent that some were musical, some could paint or
draw, others had a inclination for logic and mathematics, others for abstract thought.
Yes one can study the masters, I know, i used to sit in museums copying the artefacts
and exhibits when i was an art student, but its not the forte of all. People often cite the
Polgar sisters, but no amount of hard work can make up for natural talent, yes you
may achieve a rating of 2000 OTB, but does it not seem that it should be somewhat
easier than it is or is it a case of no pain no gain? I believe you must have at least
some aptitude for chess, not merely for learning, because we dont learn chess the
same way as we do, mathematics for example.